Part 1 Overview TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1361 3 Status of North American LRT Systems: 1992 Update JOHN w. SCHUMANN Previous summaries of light rail transit (LRT) systems have cov­ This update supplements the previous summaries. It adds ered reconstruction of systems surviving from the first generation data on the eighth all-new project to open (Long Beach-Los of electric railway development and initiation of service on seven Angeles) as well as on extensions and other improvements completely new lines. This update provides tables that include elsewhere. Baltimore has just initiated revenue service, but the eighth all-new project (the Long Beach-Los Angeles Blue Line), as well as extensions and improvements elsewhere. Sig­ only part of the total project is operating and is too new for nificant events of the past 3 years include the opening of new meaningful statistics. In addition progress on systems being lines and line extensions in San Diego, Calgary, Edmonton, San built, designed, and planned in other U.S. and Canadian cities Francisco, and Toronto, and completion in Santa Clara County is noted. LRT developments in Mexico are summarized in a (San Jose) of the full 32.8-km (20.4-mi) Guadalupe Corridor LRT separate section. project. Other cities have purchased additional light rail vehicles (LRVs) and added stations. Sacramento is increasing its double track from 40 percent to 60 percent of total line length. Progress continues in other U.S., Canadian, and Mexican cities that are EVOLVING LRT CONCEPT building, designing, and planning LRT systems. Several North American transit agencies are seriously considering low-floor LRVs, Starting with the first national LRT conference in 1975, TRB and cities planning LRT also are being introduced to the concept. has played a leading role in dissemination of balanced, un­ However, a design is needed that provides low-level entries but biased information on planning, design, and operation ofLRT that also builds on proven technology to meet North American systems. An early contribution was a succinct definition of criteria for crash worthiness and fire safety. New projects continue the mode: to illustrate the flexibility and effectiveness of LRT in providing quality service at affordable prices. Efforts to expand all the new LRT systems demonstrate LRT's acceptance by the riding public. Light rail transit is a mode of urban transportation that uses The next decade should see more new projects implemented and predominantly reserved, but not necessarily grade-separated, existing systems extended or upgraded. rights-of-way. Electrically propelled vehicles operate singly or in trains. Light rail transit provides a wide range of passenger capacities and performance characteristics at moderate costs. Twenty years ago the transit industry was talking about a (3, p. 1) signal event: the first order in many years for electric surface rail cars, newly dubbed "light rail vehicles" (LRVs), placed Reviewing progress during the intervening years, TRB's jointly by authorities in Boston and San Francisco. This was LRT subcommittee decided that a revised definition was the first real indication that the few trolley systems still run­ needed. This was prepared and approved at the end of 1988: ning probably would be saved and renewed for many more decades of service. Light rail transit is a metropolitan electric railway system char­ acterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along Looking back it is surprising how much progress has been exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in made since 1972 by what is now called the light rail transit subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge (LRT) mode. Previous summaries (1,2) have included the passengers at track or car-floor level. reconstruction of systems surviving from the first generation of electric railway development in nine cities and the initiation The goal was a definition that would be more descriptive of service on completely new LRT lines in seven cities. of the technology that had emerged during those years and At the last national LRT conference sponsored by the would not categorically exclude streetcars but would separate Transportation Research Board, it was reported that the pre­ LRT from automated and manually operated guideway transit vious decade had seen a 47 percent increase in miles of LRT systems for which full grade separation is mandatory. This is line in service, including new-start systems in Edmonton, a somewhat different approach from that of the American Calgary, San Diego, Buffalo, Portland, Sacramento, and San Public Transit Association and the Federal Transit Admin­ Jose. Progress has continued in the last 4 years. Patronage istration, both of which simply combine streetcars with the on most new-start projects has been growing. More new sys­ LRT category in their statistics. tems have opened and existing systems have grown or been improved. CHANGES IN TABLE FORMATS LTK Engineering Services, Suite 600, 28 S.W . First Avenue, Port­ In previous summaries, tabular data on LRT and streetcar land, Oreg. 97204. systems were aggregated into three categories: 4 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1361 • LRT -Group I: system average operating speeds of 24 their route networks than is typically the case for Group II. km/hr (15 mph) or higher; There are, of course, exceptions in each category. • LRT-Group II: system average operating speeds of at The remainder of this paper discusses specific progress made least 16 km/hr (10 mph), but less than 24 km/hr (15 mph); since 1988 by North American LRT systems, new starts, and and cities actively planning LRT. •Streetcars: system average operating speeds less than 16 km/hr (10-mph). UPGRADING AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING SYSTEMS The tables in this paper have been recast to combine the Streetcars category with LRT-Group II. Thus 24 km/hr (15 Work to renew older systems and expand second generation mph) is the single break point in assigning systems to a cat­ LRT projects continues. Progress since 1988 is summarized egory. In fact the three systems previously listed as Streetcars below by city. do have varying degrees of LRT characteristics: • New Orleans' St. Charles line operates mostly in reserved Boston (Green Line) median alignments; frequent passenger stops and unprotected grade crossings are the primary reasons for its low commercial • Specifications have been drafted for the next procurement speed. of LRVs, which are to be low-floor cars. Funding must be • North Philadelphia car lines still in service are gaining identified to proceed with this first step to make the Green some separation from other traffic by designation of medians Line comply with requirements of the Americans with Dis­ as semiexclusive transit lanes, as described below. abilities Act. Station modifications will follow in a program • Toronto's new Harbourfront line, operating in a reserved staged over time. median and a short subway, is clearly LRT. • Design work is proceeding on relocation of the North Station area from an elevated structure to a new subway align­ As indicated in Tables 1-7, the cities in Group I are pri­ ment. marily those using LRT for line-haul express services on • Planning continues for rebuilding the Lechmere terminus. relatively long main trunk routes. Systems in Group II tend • The Fort Point Channel Underground Transitway is being to have shorter lines serving the heavier routes of the inner conceptually designed for electric trolley or dual-mode buses urban area. Group I LRV fleets are spread more thinly over with the potential for conversion to LRT. TABLE I Line Lengths, Car Fleets, and Productivity . l"•rameten stauu1i:s Ooe-Way No. of Ride&[ C1trs/ RJdet/ 'i·R!lles/ Oly/Syalem U11e lun(ml) Cars WeekdJly k111(Dll) km( ml) 0 Oar LRT-Group !; Calgary, C-Train(a) 29.3(18.2) 85 114000 2.9(4.7) 3891(6264) 1341 Cleveland, Shaker Rapid(b) 21.1(13.1) 48 17500 2.3(3.7) 829(1336) 365 Edmonton, Northeast LRT(a) 11.1( 6.9) 37 23000 3.3(5.4) 2072(3333) 622 Los Angeles, Long Beach (a) 35.4(22.0) 54 35000 1.5(2.5) 989(1591) 648 Newark, City Subway(b) 6.9( 4.3) 24 14100 3.5(5.6) 2043(3279) 588 Phila, Media-Sharon Hill(b) 19.2( 11.9) 29 9200 l.5(2.4) 479( 773) 317 Portland, MAX(a) 24.3(15.1) 26 24000 1.1(1.7) 988(1589) 923 Sacramento, RT Metro(a) 29.5( 18 .3) 36 23000 1.2(2.0) 782( 1257) 639 San Diego Trolley(a) 54.7(33.9) 71 53000 1.3(2.I) 969(1563) 746 San Jose, Guadalupe(a) J2,2(2Q,Ql 22. 19000 1.6(2.5) 590( 950) 380 Subtotals/ Averages 263.7(163.7) 460 331800 1.7(2.8) 1258(2027) 721 LRT-Grol!p II; Boston, Green Line(b) 40.1(24.9) 225 215000 5.6(9.0) 5362(8635) 956 Boston, Mattapan-Ashmont(b) 4.3( 2.7) 12 6800 2.8(4.4) 1581(2519) 567 Buffalo, MetroRail(a) 10.3( 6.4) 27 28000 2.6(4.2) 2718(4375) 1037 Ft. Worth, Tandy l.6( 1.0) 8 5900 5.0(8 .0) 3688(5900) 738 New Orleans, St. Charles(b) 10.5( 6.5) 35 21000 3.3(5.4) 2000(3231) 600 Philadelphia, Streetcars 46.0(28.6) 99 56800 2.2(3.5) 1235(1986) 574 Phila, Subway-Surface(b) 35.9(22.3) 112 48200 3.1(5.0) 1343(2161) 430 Pittsburgh, South Hills(b) 43.5(27.0) 71 36000 2.0(3.2) 828(1333) 507 San Francisco, Muni Metro(c) 35.4(22.I) 128 134300 3.6(5.8) 3794(6077) 1049 Toronto, Streetcars 7~ , ~(4{i .